Ye Olde Inn

I recently read a discussion (I think on Board Game Geek) about the lack of love for short swords. The discussion was largely about how short swords serve little use after the first quest or two, and really never find their way back into the game. I also learned that in Europe, short swords could attack diagonally. This stirred up 2 questions that I'd like to gather opinions on.

1) What do people think about letting short swords attack diagonally? This would give the weapon a little more purpose, as well as give the armory a less linear progression (with choice of weapons being more than just more dice to attack). However, it kind of renders the staff moot, since 50 gold would be the difference between being able to use a shield or not.

2) What do people think about letting Wizards use short swords? This is a bit more of a heretical leap, but bear with me. We know that HeroQuest and Warhammer are in bed with one another. Unlike their D&D counterpart, Warhammer Wizards are all packing heat. Many Wizard models (including the champ from Warhammer Quest) are all holding a sword. I've even seen converted HQ Wizards holding swords. I don't recall seeing anything in Advanced HeroQuest that restricts Wizards as heavily either. The benefit here is that Wizards have something to buy, and can fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I've never found that Wizards scale as well, end game, as the other heroes. The negative here is that, like the above suggestion, staves basically become useless. It also encourages Wizards to get into the fight, which may not be a good idea.

Thoughts?

The shortsword attacking diagonal rule is based on how in the UK rules, the Heroes start off with no weapons, and their Attack Dice score is how well they can attack without any weapons.

I like having the spear as the diagonal 2 attack dice weapon. As a houserule, I allow Heroes to carry a shortsword in place of a shield. An off-handed shortsword could be used to boost the primary weapon by one die, or to boost defense by one die, but only against melee weapons. (I also have bucklers that only work in melee, and are cheaper then shields) The player would have to note that the sword is being used offensively an the start his turn, or else its being used defensively by default.

I like that option -- allowing the Wizard to carry bigger weapons. You can ether attack diagonally with the staff, or attack with two dice with a shortsword.

I suppose I'd be in favor of the Wizard using a shortsword, but I wouldn't let a shortsword have the diagonal attack ability. It's "short." I feel like only longer weapons can attack diagonally, i.e. longsword, spear, staff. And since I wouldn't let it have a diagonal attack, I might still see the Wizard buying a staff so that he could attack diagonally from a "safe" square even if it's only with 1 attack die instead of 2.

The shortsword attacking diagonally makes no sense, in a strictly in-game-coherency meaning.
There's the spear and both weapons would be exactly the same.

BUT... In reality, a short sword would be better suited for mildly longer range attacks (as in, HQ-diagonal) than the longsword.
Here's why: the short sword is used poking and thrusting, adding one full arm length to it reach. In a nutshell, the tip deals the damge;
a longsword blow needs much more room and body work, but the reach is NOT longer than that of a short sword as it's much less variable. The blade's edge deals the damage (mostly).
That may be confusing, but imagine both fighting styles and you see the truth in that revelation, brought to me by a HQ-player who also LARPs and swordfights as a hobby.

Of course, this goes all too much into detail and there's an apparent contradiction between the terms short sword and longsword and their reaches.
That and the spear-fact make me keep 2 AD (NOT diagonal) for the short sword nd 3 AD (diagonal) for the longsword.

I'm gonna have the shortsword from my custom armoury to be like the 1st edition UK set, without "reach" or diagonal attacks. I might add a new sword that does have reach and 2 AD though. But I agree it will get thrown into a corner pretty fast.

I have included a rapier. 2 AD (incl. diagonal), but only white shields deal damage.
No use against Skeletons, Chaos Warriors, and Gargoyles (and some custom monsters of mine).
I allow the Wizard to use it, cause it's not heavy on the metal side.
This or a variation thereof might be a good idea for you, Sjeng.

Or a battle staff, bostaff or something similar.

knightkrawler wrote:BUT... In reality, a short sword would be better suited for mildly longer range attacks (as in, HQ-diagonal) than the longsword.
Here's why: the short sword is used poking and thrusting, adding one full arm length to it reach. In a nutshell, the tip deals the damge;
a longsword blow needs much more room and body work, but the reach is NOT longer than that of a short sword as it's much less variable. The blade's edge deals the damage (mostly).
That may be confusing, but imagine both fighting styles and you see the truth in that revelation, brought to me by a HQ-player who also LARPs and swordfights as a hobby.

Wouldn't every weapon be diagonal if you could add arm length to it? A dagger could be used for poking and thrusting, or a broadsword, or the end of a battle axe, etc. Maybe to simplify matters, the HQ designers made the diagonal squares too far away for thrusting from shorter weapons like daggers and shortswords, but staffs and longswords have enough length to make it into those squares. Maybe, like you say, the longsword does damage with its edge to monsters in adjacent squares and does poking damage with the sword point to monsters in diagonal squares.

I can see why short swords could attack diagonally, and at the same time why the rule was taken out. A short sword, as noted above, is kind of meant for thrusting. Assuming a square in HQ is your reach, a thrust short sword is going to extend past that reach. A broadsword, on the other hand, is best swung, but doesn't extend your reach enough to attack diagonally. A longsword is still a swung weapon, but it's added length allows you to strike further away. Same for a staff.

That all being said, it is confusing and all conjecture as to what can hit and what can't. So I can totally see the US designers taking the rule out to prevent confusion and "what the -" looks.

It seems pretty clear that people aren't a fan of the peculiarly long reaching short sword. In light of that, how do you feel about the short sword wielding Wizard?

AerynB wrote: Maybe to simplify matters, the HQ designers made the diagonal squares too far away for thrusting from shorter weapons like daggers and shortswords, but staffs and longswords have enough length to make it into those squares. Maybe, like you say, the longsword does damage with its edge to monsters in adjacent squares and does poking damage with the sword point to monsters in diagonal squares.

That's exactly how I see it and why I won't allow diagonal attacks with a short sword.
On a side note: I was told that a longsword is basically just too heavy to poke around, so for its reach there's only the arm length, whereas with a short sword it's arm length plus sword length. That's how it was explained to me by that particular person who allows diagonal attacks with a short sword, but not with a longsword.
I still find it rather curious why he overcomplicates matters.

ScooterinAB wrote:That all being said, it is confusing and all conjecture as to what can hit and what can't. So I can totally see the US designers taking the rule out to prevent confusion and "what the -" looks.

Exactly...

ScooterinAB wrote:It seems pretty clear that people aren't a fan of the peculiarly long reaching short sword. In light of that, how do you feel about the short sword wielding Wizard?

Quest 12 awards the Wizard's Staff artifact, which allows 2 Attack Dice. This makes the shortsword a hand-me-down weapon that is useful for several Quests only. I guess that isn't a problem as much as an observation that the Wizard Attack Dice problem gets solved eventually.

The Wizard probably won't buy a shortsword, as another Hero will have upgraded and can gift one to the Wizard, anyway. This means the Wizard will get 2 AD as a delayed default. If I were going to allow the Wizard to use a shortsword, then I'd slap a gold-coin training cost on it, say 150 or 300 additional gold coins. Wizards make poor students of combat, and so they should require extra effort and expense.

You already mentioned the main drawback, which is that many players would skip over the defensive staff to first achieve the offensive shortsword. That could mean early Wizard mortality, which in turn threatens the survivability of the rest of the Heroes. I'd rather increase his offensive power through additional spells. Let the Wizard be a magic specialist, and let the Elf handle the magic/combat overlap.